Switch 2/Pro/Deluxe reveal-to-release speculation.

[Aostia82]

I think that Zelda won't be tied to Switch 2, aprt from being playable with better performances and resolutions on the new hardware

Big launch title imho will be Mario Kart 9 (10 actually?)

 

[silvergun]

Wow people are really expecting Zelda to be the launch title.
I think Zelda's DLC will be a big incentive at year's end.

Edit:
I also thought about another path. The "Ambassador" path lol. Giving the special timing and production conditions, they could give a head start with an online only release for NSO users. A bit of an enhanced launch like they did with the new 3DS, months before the general retail release.
That would be very special and un-Nintendo yeah. Just posting for posterity, just in case.

 

[fiendcode]

I pick Gamecube Spice.

 

[Terrell]

Let's say you are right though, maybe that was all Iwata. Why in the world would the current president risk changing that? What other era in Nintendo's history comes close? Remember Iwata has DS, Wii, 3DS, WiiU, and Switch. Even against GB/GBC, GBA, NES, SNES, and N64 all of Nintendos next 5 highest selling, Iwata's legacy smokes them. That company is full of Iwata's legacy dude, that ain't changing after the man lost his life. He has plenty of friends in that company and did a fantastic job. He's responsible for their current turnaround lmao.

Because the strategy works until it doesn’t. You even note that with the inclusion of 3DS and Wii U, Nintendo’s 2 worst hardware cycles in their respective hardware categories before Nintendo went decided to make a 3rd with the hybrid and make it their only hardware category.

Since we're talking about not going against Iwata's legacy, it’s also worth noting that, in many ways, Switch was very much a course correction from prior design choices, as 2 of the goals Iwata’s Nintendo set down with Switch were not alienating 3rd-parties/consumers and a longer lifecycle.

Doing something wildly new and making it a focus of the new hardware means there is discontinuity in game design between Switch and new hardware, as cross-gen releases that could extend the Switch lifecycle become more challenging. Even if you don't think hardware is coming in 2023, it isn't much further out from that, so you either have to choose to omit game design tailored to the new hardware features to make them cross-gen (and thus invalidate those new hardware features in their own software), add additional design components to a single version (and re-create the problem Switch was designed to avoid, splitting game creation along hardware lines) or cut the cord and give up on elongating the Switch lifecycle (and thus engage in risking a change from Iwata's plan for Switch that you say they shouldn't do). None of those are particularly swell options.
Likewise, Iwata's greatest achievement in his presidency was thawing the frosty relationships the company had with 3rd-parties under Hiroshi Yamauchi. However, with the exception of the DS, friendlier relations alone were not getting them the 3rd-party software (and commensurate software sales) they wanted, which is why the design of Switch was done in a way that alienated them as little as possible, giving them bog-standard and well-understood internal hardware with standard input configurations rather that highly-custom alien SoCs and inputs that require alternate design languages. Koizumi admitted as much. So if that was the goal, why would they change gears instead of pursuing that further?
As for alienating consumers, Nintendo learned that lesson the hard way with 3DS, when they had to dial back their ambitions with 3DS and make the stereoscopic 3D fully optional, after a Mario demo at E3 2010 that used the 3D effect mandatorily for gameplay, because there were no small amount of customers who couldn’t process stereoscopic 3D images. Likewise, to loop back to developers, implementation of the now-optional 3D feature by 3rd-parties was exceptionally hit-or-miss, a design roadblock that Iwata himself cautiously acknowledged.

Switch in its design was made in such a way that it didn't impose on game design to anywhere near the degree we saw with Wii, DS or their direct follow-ups, with features being primarily about maximizing consumer use cases rather than game design, and we can see how that's worked strongly to their advantage. So going backwards on an initiative that started with Iwata seems... kinda contrary to the idea of not following his legacy, so don't expect much in the way of flashy new gimmicks that they'll have to justify the existence of and create game design impositions as we've seen in the past, Iwata himself seemed to have killed that era of Nintendo dead. And considering Switch's success, I'm pretty sure they're OK with that.

It makes no sense to announce a new system in January. That's a great way to piss off the 10 million or so people who just got a Switch for the holidays.

I dunno, were the 15 million people who bought a DS between Sept 2009 and March 2010 pissed about the 3DS announcement happening right after the holidays in March 2010? How about the 33 million who bought a DS between the beginning of 2009 and March 2010? You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find much evidence for that. How about GBA customers who bought one in 2003, after Iwata explicitly said they were releasing a new product that would not succeed GBA or GameCube, only to announce DS in January of 2004 and, despite "third pillar" talk, go on to succeed GBA? No one seemed bothered about it, considering GBA continued to sell pretty close to prior years in 2004.
This is not some newborn industry that doesn't have expected rules for hardware release cadence; if you're buying dedicated gaming hardware in its 6th year at market, you do so knowing new hardware is on the horizon. The only platforms where that hasn't been the case are the first devices Nintendo ever released in the console and handheld categories over 30 years ago, the NES/Famicom (7.35 years) and Game Boy (9.5-12 years, depending on if you count GBC or not), as all the rest were replaced at or shortly after the 6th year, if not sooner.
It's like someone being mad about buying a new iPhone in August after... what, 14 years of yearly revisions that are almost always announced in September?

That was an unknown factor. A lot of things have changed. For one, the Switch has a lot of the PS4 gen games on it already, for example DOOM and the Witcher 3.
So, the only thing a new Switch can offer is handheld versions of new games, which there just have not been that many. I am not trying to move goal posts, just pointing out more issues for why it needs to come out later rather than sooner. By the time, it does come out will PS4 have been abandoned?

Cross-gen with PS4 is set to continue into 2024, Sega and Capcom's software release schedule all but confirm that. So no, PS4 is beating the odds and resisting abandonment into PS5's 4th year on the market, partly because of how PS5 software has been selling in certain key markets. Don't be shocked if that weakness is something Nintendo would opt to seize on.

 

[JavelinR]

I dunno, were the 15 million people who bought a DS between Sept 2009 and March 2010 pissed about the 3DS announcement happening right after the holidays in March 2010? How about the 33 million who bought a DS between the beginning of 2009 and March 2010? You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find much evidence for that. How about GBA customers who bought one in 2003, after Iwata explicitly said they were releasing a new product that would not succeed GBA or GameCube, only to announce DS in January of 2004 and, despite "third pillar" talk, go on to succeed GBA? No one seemed bothered about it, considering GBA continued to sell pretty close to prior years in 2004.

There's a massive time frame difference between a year or two of sales and the few weeks from Christmas to a January announcement. Also the 3DS is Nintendo's worst performing handheld. So they arguably would've been better off sticking with the DS for another year to get the 3DS production costs down. (It would've also let the DS likely pass 160m, for those who care about milestones.)

GBA was killed off too soon, but even accounting for inflation it was far far cheaper than a Switch which makes it an easier pill to swallow. (Like the cost of just 2 games cheap.)

 

[Joseki]

.

 

[TonyBaduy]

I sort of think it does. I think it looks great now, but the whole thing that makes Zelda exciting is how it evolves. If the current artstyle is the end of development that would be pretty depressing.

This is honestly the most realistic schedule in my opinion; however, a lot depends on manufacturing... I am really going to miss the day I could preorder my Switch back in February 2017 and people were not that interested... Now, it will be a battle to get a new Switch whenever they release it...

Direct Zelda sequel tend to share the same artstyle.

 

[Phenom08]

Because the strategy works until it doesn’t. You even note that with the inclusion of 3DS and Wii U, Nintendo’s 2 worst hardware cycles in their respective hardware categories before Nintendo went decided to make a 3rd with the hybrid and make it their only hardware category.

It works until it doesn't ...meaning what exactly? Nintendo like many other businesses don't just throw ideas away just because they may not work in the future. What type of logic is that? They have learned from their past experiences whether its DS, Wii, 3DS, and WiiU and take that knowledge and apply it to whatever the next platform is. For example, Wii and DS taught them when a new idea (new concept/gimmick) works, it pays off big time. Wii and DS combined for over 255 million units of hardware and nearly 2 billion units of software. What in the world makes you think they don't want to experience something like that again? WiiU and 3DS may have taught them that you will not always catch lightning in a bottle so when you don't how do you continue to survive? With WiiU and 3DS, Nintendo found out they cannot effectively support two individual platforms at the same time. The Switch is one platform allowing multiple form factors, this allows Nintendo to focus their full support behind one platform while still chasing that blue ocean strategy they chased with DS and Wii successfully and 3DS and WiiU unsuccessfully. The Switch was designed to chase that audience still (Labo, Ring Fit Adventure, Switch Sports, and Brainage), while not putting the company at risk if it doesn't work like WiiU and 3DS. Wii/DS are no different to Switch, both have traditional Nintendo Ip with market expanding games. People paint this picture of Switch being different to continue this agenda of Nintendo during and Wii/DS era is bad, to them that was proved by WiiU/3DS not doing as well. If they include Switch in that, then that hurts the agenda and proves Wii/DS era Nintendo is good. Also Switch isn't it's own hardware category, stop listening to your own beliefs and listen to Nintendo. Nintendo sees Switch as a portable home console not hybrid.

Since we're talking about not going against Iwata's legacy, it’s also worth noting that, in many ways, Switch was very much a course correction from prior design choices, as 2 of the goals Iwata’s Nintendo set down with Switch were not alienating 3rd-parties/consumers and a longer lifecycle.

I guess you are refering to the Switch's internal hardware vs DS/Wii? Well duh lol, this applies to Microsoft and Sony as well. Take a look at what 3rd parties said about developing for PS3 compared to PS4. Again people learn from their past mistakes, its almost like you want to seperate Switch from Wii/DS so bad, that you are looking for anything. Longer life cycle isn't close to being true, Wii went further than the usual 5 years Nintendo home consoles usually saw and DS to 3DS transition is over 6 years but less than 7 because 3DS released early in the year. Switch successor releasing by holiday 2023 still has it less than 7. So where are you getting this longer lifecycles from?

Doing something wildly new and making it a focus of the new hardware means there is discontinuity in game design between Switch and new hardware, as cross-gen releases that could extend the Switch lifecycle become more challenging. Even if you don't think hardware is coming in 2023, it isn't much further out from that, so you either have to choose to omit game design tailored to the new hardware features to make them cross-gen (and thus invalidate those new hardware features in their own software), add additional design components to a single version (and re-create the problem Switch was designed to avoid, splitting game creation along hardware lines) or cut the cord and give up on elongating the Switch lifecycle (and thus engage in risking a change from Iwata's plan for Switch that you say they shouldn't do). None of those are particularly swell options.

Both options are bad because your biggest mistake here is assuming Nintendo is even interested in cross gen to begin with lol. Like stop looking at Playstation and Xbox and applying what they do to Nintendo. Nintendo is far more consistent at producing software than them two lol. Those two do cross gen because of how much of a joke they both are at producing multiple high selling software annually. The only major Nintendo franchise that gets cross gen releases is Zelda because of how inconsistent it is at showing up.

Likewise, Iwata's greatest achievement in his presidency was thawing the frosty relationships the company had with 3rd-parties under Hiroshi Yamauchi. However, with the exception of the DS, friendlier relations alone were not getting them the 3rd-party software (and commensurate software sales) they wanted, which is why the design of Switch was done in a way that alienated them as little as possible, giving them bog-standard and well-understood internal hardware with standard input configurations rather that highly-custom alien SoCs and inputs that require alternate design languages. Koizumi admitted as much. So if that was the goal, why would they change gears instead of pursuing that further?

This is you again just fishing for something to seperate Switch from Wii/DS, some how you think this is proof Nintendo will just change course from Iwata's ideology. All of the companies have done this, gotten away from customized parts. People learn from past mistakes, this is something they have all figured out through their relationships with 3rd parties. Also are you suggesting I'm referring to customized parts as Iwata's ideology? When I speak of Iwata's ideology, I'm referring to the new concepts/gimmicks to reach a different audience.

As for alienating consumers, Nintendo learned that lesson the hard way with 3DS, when they had to dial back their ambitions with 3DS and make the stereoscopic 3D fully optional, after a Mario demo at E3 2010 that used the 3D effect mandatorily for gameplay, because there were no small amount of customers who couldn’t process stereoscopic 3D images. Likewise, to loop back to developers, implementation of the now-optional 3D feature by 3rd-parties was exceptionally hit-or-miss, a design roadblock that Iwata himself cautiously acknowledged.

I'm not sure what to say to this. You speak as if because the 3D in 3DS backfiring or the tablet on WiiU failing, this lead to Nintendo no longer producing platforms with new concepts and ideas but that's exactly the opposite of what Switch is. The Switch's main gimmick is the switching lol, it's in the name.

Switch in its design was made in such a way that it didn't impose on game design to anywhere near the degree we saw with Wii, DS or their direct follow-ups, with features being primarily about maximizing consumer use cases rather than game design, and we can see how that's worked strongly to their advantage. So going backwards on an initiative that started with Iwata seems... kinda contrary to the idea of not following his legacy, so don't expect much in the way of flashy new gimmicks that they'll have to justify the existence of and create game design impositions as we've seen in the past, Iwata himself seemed to have killed that era of Nintendo dead. And considering Switch's success, I'm pretty sure they're OK with that.

Like dude, you are flat out just seeing what you want to see. Neither Wii or DS imposed on game design anymore than Switch. You have yet to give me a single example, what franchise in Nintendo's arsenal was hurt by Wii or DS but works on Switch? The Switch having better internal hardware than Wii/DS is called technology advancing along with Nintendo's experience in developing hardware. Can you please establish what you believe was Iwata's initiative? I'm not following it too well but you have yet to define it. Switch has not gone backwards on anything Wii/DS created lmao. Like I am beginning to think you like Switch but wasn't fond of Wii/DS? I'm trying to figureout how you don't see them as practically twins lol. Switch literally kept motion controls & touch controls, friend codes, and both launched with gimmicky software. Wii launched with Wii Sports and Zelda Twiligh Princess and Switch launched with 1,2 Switch and Zelda BoTW. The presentation literally began with 1,2 Switch. You are simply hating Wii because Wii Sports was such a massive hit, that's why you and many others have this notion of motion controls was the Wii's sole focus. It wasn't, it just was such a popular feature. 3rd parties felt pressured into using it even when it wasn't needed, Nintendo's own developers used it when it made sense. The Wii's legacy is tainted by people blaming it for companies making bad decisions with it's hardware. Wii and Switch are cut from the same cloth. Switch's successor will have some new gimmick but that doesn't mean it won't keep the same form factor.

 

[seanlole]

It's hard to Nintendo to wait a year more. Yet, the announcement will be around June and the launch, in November

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Is there any source to Nvidia leaking Metroid Prime Trilogy HD releasing this month?

Nope lol.


But you can see here that they reference the switch and the Horizon OS:

abca2 is what Nintendo refers to as the Switch internally.

 

[My Tulpa]

The Nvidia hack and the linux commitments already have shown it not only exists, but the SoC is already basically finalized, if it hasn't entered full manufacturing yet, it should do so soon.


Have you seen the specs from the hack and the leaks? Drake is in no way just an upgrade of the Switch, it's a completely different architecture and even in the worst scenario (minimum frequencies possible) it'd easily surpass the Switch and even PS4 powerwise before DLSS, that is not something one can call just a Switch Pro, at that point it's a complete successor, no matter how Nintendo wants to market it. It most likely give the Series S good competition in certain areas too, like RT and may even have more RAM available. If they really wanted to make a Switch Pro, they'd probably just shrink the TX1 again for a TX1++ and increase it's frequencies, maybe they'd also improve the CPU, as many games are limited by it. That'd be enough for an upgraded model. I need to add that because they are different architectures, games for Switch will only run in Drake's compatibility mode, they aren't autoported to it, thus they need to be manually ported... which means having 2 versions of the game, which means it's not just an upgrade. That's why I said that if they wanted an upgrade they'd keep the TX1 and just improve it more.

Yes, I know all about the expected Drake hardware specs.

Yes, it’s a leap in power potential over the current models, but when all is said and done, it’s pretty much the minimum required to have DLSS function on a mobile SoC at ~15 W.

With Nvidia as a partner, Nintendo mobile/hybrid gaming future is development centering around DLSS on tensor cores…rather than ever chasing to render games at native resolutions ever again (also, finally having a great AA solution)

You ask why Nintendo wouldn’t have just gone much less powerful for a mid gen upgrade…well there you go. That’s the answer. They want to start getting a hand on DLSS/RT development in games going forward without the need to move away focus from making games for the 115 million current switches out there.

Of course they won’t call it a “Switch Pro”, but it will act like one.

And my man, even if this was truly a successor type model, it would absolutely be able to play the current Switch library of games. I have no doubt that Nintendo/Nvidia have found a way for any Switch game to be playable on the Drake SoC. So I don’t think this worry is a good argument as to why it couldn’t be positioned as a mid gen, premium mode option.

 

[TonyBaduy]

Yes, I know all about the expected Drake hardware specs.

Yes, it’s a leap in power potential over the current models, but when all is said and done, it’s pretty much the minimum required to have DLSS function on a mobile SoC at ~15 W.

With Nvidia as a partner, Nintendo mobile/hybrid gaming future is development centering around DLSS on tensor cores…rather than ever chasing to render games at native resolutions ever again (also, finally having a great AA solution)

You ask why Nintendo wouldn’t have just gone much less powerful for a mid gen upgrade…well there you go. That’s the answer. They want to start getting a hand on DLSS/RT development in games going forward without the need to move away focus from making games for the 115 million current switches out there.

Of course they won’t call it a “Switch Pro”, but it will act like one.

And my man, even if this was truly a successor type model, it would absolutely be able to play the current Switch library of games. I have no doubt that Nintendo/Nvidia have found a way for any Switch game to be playable on the Drake SoC. So I don’t think this worry is a good argument as to why it couldn’t be positioned as a mid gen, premium mode option.

I am not sure it'll act completely as a "Switch Pro", maybe, just maaaaybe, for the consumer side it will, but for devs it won't, because it's a totally new architecture and thus if they want their games to use all it's features they'll literally will have to port it to Drake. It'll probably won't be too hard porting from Switch to Drake, but it'll have to be done if they want to use DLSS and RT.

 

[ILikeFeet]

it’s pretty much the minimum required to have DLSS function on a mobile SoC at ~15 W.

it's not. it's over-provisioned to do DLSS.

 

[Joseki]

.

 

[Tokuiten]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering how people feel about Switch 2 launching next fiscal year (April '23 - March '24), yes or no? I personally don't see it launching this FY or launching after March '24.

Together with Zelda, so yes, next fiscal year.

 

[Brandonleemoss]

I pick Gamecube Spice.

I would buy 2 of those!
I gave my lil sis my GC spice
console and she loved the color!
I wish it have dual screens like the
DS but flippable so you can also
use just one or both lol

 

[ILikeFeet]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering how people feel about Switch 2 launching next fiscal year (April '23 - March '24), yes or no? I personally don't see it launching this FY or launching after March '24.

That's my expectation. Anything beyond that, I would think Drake was scrapped and I don't see a reason to believe that yet

 

[Astandahl]

I'm expecting March 2024 at this point.

 

[Aostia82]

I'm expecting March 2024 at this point.

I stopped expecting anything

 

[Forbids]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering how people feel about Switch 2 launching next fiscal year (April '23 - March '24), yes or no? I personally don't see it launching this FY or launching after March '24.

I think it'll launch with Zelda. They won't announce it until January then full push for next five months to release.

 

[fiendcode]

Lite OLED: late summer 2023, $249.99
Drake: March 2024, $399.99

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Is there any reason why they would wait to release it at the very end of a fiscal year and not do it at the end of a calendar year like Sony and Microsoft? And with their announcement-to-release cadences getting shorter, why is it a good idea to have such a long release cadence and reduce sales further?

 

[wolftendo]

I stopped expecting anything

Wisest choice.

For me, unless Nintendo makes an official annoucement, the switch is the only current Nintendo console that exists right now.

 

[Dakota Joestar]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering how people feel about Switch 2 launching next fiscal year (April '23 - March '24), yes or no? I personally don't see it launching this FY or launching after March '24.

I think it will launch next holiday. Tears of the Kingdom doesn't need it to succeed and it doesn't need Tears of the Kingdom since Nintendo has plenty of other studios with unrevealed games that could be in its launch window like the next 3D Mario.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

I think it will launch next holiday. Tears of the Kingdom doesn't need it to succeed and it doesn't need Tears of the Kingdom since Nintendo has plenty of other studios with unrevealed games that could be in its launch window like the next 3D Mario.

a good first impression is required in this day and age to get the fall rolling.

Or you get the PS3 early days…. Or the 3DS early days…


To not beat around the bush, Nintendo can have any game to launch with a system, that doesn’t mean every game is a perfect system launcher.

And then there’s the “year rounders” or what rounds out the first year and supports the the launch title star of that system.

 

[fiendcode]

Is there any reason why they would wait to release it at the very end of a fiscal year and not do it at the end of a calendar year like Sony and Microsoft? And with their announcement-to-release cadences getting shorter, why is it a good idea to have such a long release cadence and reduce sales further?

Getting software ready. Like what happened with 3DS and Switch.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

Getting software ready. Like what happened with 3DS and Switch.

If they didn’t have software ready in the back for a console launch they were planning for years then I have serious questions about their efficiency….


The 3DS wasn’t delayed though, the Switch was by a quarter. 3DS was always intended to hit that end of the FY quarter, but the switch wasn’t.


Even more so, in the current environment they have of Erista/Mariko and Drake being similar, it should be easier to work the software up. Even if a skeleton started on the switch and was scaled up.

Hell, software at launch doesn’t even take full advantage of the hardware. Ex: Ratchet and Clank not using the full SSD speed and operating it at slower. That’s like later gen.


This would be different from Wii U to switch which were different, or 3DS to switch who were different.

 

[fiendcode]

If they didn’t have software ready in the back for a console launch they were planning for years then I have serious questions about their efficiency….


The 3DS wasn’t delayed though, the Switch was by a quarter. 3DS was always intended to hit that end of the FY quarter, but the switch wasn’t.


Even more so, in the current environment they have of Erista/Mariko and Drake being similar, it should be easier to work the software up. Even if a skeleton started on the switch and was scaled up.

Hell, software at launch doesn’t even take full advantage of the hardware. Ex: Ratchet and Clank not using the full SSD speed and operating it at slower. That’s like later gen.


This would be different from Wii U to switch which were different, or 3DS to switch who were different.

3DS was delayed, it was originally intended for a holiday launch as well. But besides, Nintendo has a long history of sitting on hardware launches for varying reasons and it happened to SFC, N64, GBA, GC, Wii U, etc. In some cases years even.

I don't think that's realistic today due to the nature of manufacturing but there's no real reason to rush for the holiday when Nintendo will move all the hardware they ship whenever it happens. Might as well give Switch another last big holiday in the limelight.

 

[TonyBaduy]

a good first impression is required in this day and age to get the fall rolling.

Or you get the PS3 early days…. Or the 3DS early days…


To not beat around the bush, Nintendo can have any game to launch with a system, that doesn’t mean every game is a perfect system launcher.

And then there’s the “year rounders” or what rounds out the first year and supports the the launch title star of that system.

Finally, Drake will launch with the most awaited game of all time: Nintendoland 2: Now with less F-Zero.

 

[Dakota Joestar]

If they didn’t have software ready in the back for a console launch they were planning for years then I have serious questions about their efficiency….


The 3DS wasn’t delayed though, the Switch was by a quarter. 3DS was always intended to hit that end of the FY quarter, but the switch wasn’t.


Even more so, in the current environment they have of Erista/Mariko and Drake being similar, it should be easier to work the software up. Even if a skeleton started on the switch and was scaled up.

Hell, software at launch doesn’t even take full advantage of the hardware. Ex: Ratchet and Clank not using the full SSD speed and operating it at slower. That’s like later gen.


This would be different from Wii U to switch which were different, or 3DS to switch who were different.

A new 3D Mario can easily sell the system. Whats more important then anything is having a solid first year line up though. Which is why the Switch missed the holiday 2016 window, despite originally planned to release there.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

3DS was delayed, it was originally intended for a holiday launch as well. But besides, Nintendo has a long history of sitting on hardware launches for varying reasons and it happened to SFC, N64, GBA, GC, Wii U, etc. In some cases years even.

I don't think that's realistic today due to the nature of manufacturing but there's no real reason to rush for the holiday when Nintendo will move all the hardware they ship whenever it happens. Might as well give Switch another last big holiday in the limelight.

I’m trying to get that last part, if it’s set for say March how does that help the switch if a new generational model is set for very few months after the holiday shopping? A person would have to be living under a rock with the marketing Nintendo would be doing for the new system to get it off the ground. Even if they search for “Nintendo Switch deals” online during the holiday season it would have to be a really, really sweet deal and the new system has to be really off putting to make sense in leaving a holiday.

At that point in time, gift models would be the main drivers of sales, and it would need to be who aren’t bothered by giving a model made to be the predecessor at that point in time.

My point being, I don’t understand why do that if they’d lose potential sales in that scenario, not gain more.

I’m also not personally confident in Nintendo lowering prices to drive sales like the DS, which back then was very cheap at the time. Though, it dropped 35% the fiscal year the 3DS was announced for.


And then the DS fell hard like a stone but that’s expected.

A new 3D Mario can easily sell the system. Whats more important than anything is having a solid first year line up though. Which is why the Switch missed the holiday 2016 window, despite originally planned to release there.

Mario is fine, but something like Wave Race … isn’t imo. The system launcher is supported by other software like say, a new wave race, is a better idea.

 

[fiendcode]

I’m trying to get that last part, if it’s set for say March how does that help the switch if a new generational model is set for very few months after the holiday shopping? A person would have to be living under a rock with the marketing Nintendo would be doing for the new system to get it off the ground. Even if they search for “Nintendo Switch deals” online during the holiday season it would have to be a really, really sweet deal and the new system has to be really off putting to make sense in leaving a holiday.

At that point in time, gift models would be the main drivers of sales, and it would need to be who aren’t bothered by giving a model made to be the predecessor at that point in time.

My point being, I don’t understand why do that if they’d lose potential sales in that scenario, not gain more.

I’m also not personally confident in Nintendo lowering prices to drive sales like the DS, which back then was very cheap at the time. Though, it dropped 35% the fiscal year the 3DS was announced for.


And then the DS fell hard like a stone but that’s expected.

Mario is fine, but something like Wave Race … isn’t imo. The system launcher is supported by other software like say, a new wave race, is a better idea.

3DS was leaked early by Nikkei (iirc), DS basically had all of 2010 with it known. DS also had it's own unique late stage issues with widesread piracy impacting things though, it wasn't nearly as strong a tail as Switch is showing so maybe not the best model to go off. Several home console transitions might be better to model off of, like NES/SNES or PS1/PS2.

 

[fully engaged]

Direct Zelda sequel tend to share the same artstyle .

There have been spin offs, but there really have not been any direct sequels on the same console. The only one you could argue had sequels was windwaker and those were DS games.. Majora's Mask used the assets from Ocarina of time, but it was not a direct sequel, it was more like an experimental DLC, but it wasnt a sequel. It was some weird concept piece.

 

[ILikeFeet]

There have been spin offs, but there really have not been any direct sequels on the same console. The only one you could argue had sequels was windwaker and those were DS games.. Majora's Mask used the assets from Ocarina of time, but it was not a direct sequel, it was more like an experimental DLC, but it wasnt a sequel. It was some weird concept piece.

MM was a sequel, set after the child timeline

 

[TonyBaduy]

I don't believe Nintendo will lower the Switch's prices anytime soon, maybe next year if Drake's sales made Switch sales tank like the Switch did to the 3DS, but I doubt it'll be that fast. The worse case scenario for a price cut would be... never. Or a price cut to clear all the unsold stock once the Switch isn't manufactured any longer.

 

[ReddDreadtheLead]

I think pricing seriously needs a discussion and how the phasing out will be.

 

[fiendcode]

Price wise i think the best to hope for Switch phase out is OLED drops to $299 and LCD gets discontinued. Lite continues as is alongside it unless it also gets an OLED.

Maybe on Switch's deathbed we'll also finally see Nintendo roll out a Player's Choice line.

 

[storres]

Price wise i think the best to hope for Switch phase out is OLED drops to $299 and LCD gets discontinued. Lite continues as is alongside it unless it also gets an OLED.

Maybe on Switch's deathbed we'll also finally see Nintendo roll out a Player's Choice line.

I think Lite will end up as the og 2DS and both hybrid will remain.

OG is the most profitable sku, right?

 

[ILikeFeet]

I think Lite will end up as the og 2DS and both hybrid will remain.

OG is the most profitable sku, right?

I think they said the LCD and OLED have the same margins. for that reason, I can see them cut out the LCD to save money on buying parts and just drop the price of the OLED

 

[storres]

I think they said the LCD and OLED have the same margins. for that reason, I can see them cut out the LCD to save money on buying parts and just drop the price of the OLED

Didn't Nintendo say to investors that the margins are lower when the whole Mochi stuff happen?

 

[RaymondBryce]

Nintendo has said that the OLED is the least profitable model.

 

[TonyBaduy]

I think the Lite will be replaced with Drake Lite and may even feature an OLED screen, but that won't happen until like 2025 or 2026. In the meantime the LCD Switch will be phased out and I believe the OLED will keep selling at it's current price for 1 or 2 more years. There is the possibility, however, that it only drops it's price if Nintendo has stopped production and needs to get rid of it's stock fast, however I suspect even that will sell out without a price drop. I also believe that the Switch OLED will only be able to exist for as long as Apple keeps buying those LPDDR4x RAM chips, when they move to LPDDR5, the price of LPDDR4x will increase and Nintendo will be forced to either revise the Switch to allow for LPDDR5, or discontinue it, and they'll probably pick the later. That may happen by 2025.

In short, I believe the Switch could drop in price at some point, but I also believe the possibility is slim at best, specially if the inflation issue is not resolved by 2024 or 2025.

 

[fully engaged]

MM was a sequel, set after the child timeline

The Japanese original title was literally spin off.

 

[My Tulpa]

I am not sure it'll act completely as a "Switch Pro", maybe, just maaaaybe, for the consumer side it will, but for devs it won't, because it's a totally new architecture and thus if they want their games to use all it's features they'll literally will have to port it to Drake. It'll probably won't be too hard porting from Switch to Drake, but it'll have to be done if they want to use DLSS and RT.

I don’t think many devs will want to have a Drake-only game, tbh.

Every DLSS/RT game I’ve played on my pc since 2018 had a non-DLSS/RT game version running at 900p/30fps on the ps4/one with much of the IQ turned down

I don’t see why Switch game development would be much different. You can dev relatively easy for both.

I don’t see this new Switch model doing anything much different than STILL rendering Switch games at 540p/720p but using the extra power and DLSS to output at 4K and using the extra headroom to have steady 60fps and better IQ.

What else would this thing do different than that?

Maybe I can see Nintendo making a game that relies significantly on ray tracing or something? That they feel the gameplay would be ruined without it? Or maybe something unique using the tensor cores for AI stuff a non tensor core Switch can’t do?

But that kind of stuff would be very few.

it's not. it's over-provisioned to do DLSS.

To effectively utilize DLSS at ~15w within the minimum clocks that Nintendo will have on this mobile SoC?

I disagree. You are getting closer to that minimum threshold with Drake than not.

It’s not overkill power for effective portable DLSS/RT.

What parts of this can you skimp more on, in your opinion?

 

[ILikeFeet]

To effectively utilize DLSS at ~15w within the minimum clocks that Nintendo will have on this mobile SoC?

I disagree. You are getting closer to that minimum threshold with Drake than not.

It’s not overkill power for effective portable DLSS/RT.

What parts of this can you skimp more on, in your opinion?

considering DLSS runs after frame generation, they can devote all the available power to the tensor cores to upscale frames. with 12SM, that's quite a bit of compute power for enhanced upscaling. shield tv is already doing this with much less power, and not at realtime speeds because of it. and not to mention there's the possibility of of making a new algorithm designed for Drake's low power.

and 15W would be for docked mode, not handheld mode

 

[Aostia82]

So is COD for Switch2 the new DQXI for NX?

 

[Charamiwa]

So is COD for Switch2 the new DQXI for NX?

Except this time it isn't written on a napkin during a dinner between Horii and Iwata but in an actual legally binding contract.

 

[Aostia82]

Except this time it isn't written on a napkin during a dinner between Horii and Iwata but in an actual legally binding contract.

Well, you are right, even if DQ was officially revealed during SE conference for the game

 

[Brandonleemoss]

Price wise i think the best to hope for Switch phase out is OLED drops to $299 and LCD gets discontinued. Lite continues as is alongside it unless it also gets an OLED.

Maybe on Switch's deathbed we'll also finally see Nintendo roll out a Player's Choice line.

Wasn't this one of the original rumors back before the OLED officially shown? Aula rumor a think?

 

[Terrell]

I'll come back to Phenom in a bit (he's banned, so I have time now).

I see a price drop for Switch if only to permit differentiation from what comes next. If they want to "best foot forward" this next hardware, they'll want it at an appropriate price. But with Switch at USD$300 and the OLED at USD$350, it doesn't leave much room for market-friendly pricing without running exceptionally close to the price of the OLED.
Let's be real, the pool of people willing to pay the same as a PS5 for new Nintendo hardware is not that big; especially with supply issues being resolved, you'd have to REALLY love the go-anywhere nature of the hybrid to buy a Switch in lieu of a PS5 at USD$450 or $500. Plus, given this new hardware is likely to cost a lot less to make than that, the profit margin at those prices would be so ridiculous that it'd look like a naked cash grab when someone finally works out the bill of materials in the first year.
And we know that Nintendo understands that consumers can be price-sensitive, even if it is a better product than what came before it, as they got to experience first hand with the 3DS at launch.
So realistically, the highest they can go is $50 more than the OLED at $400, but then that devalues the OLED. The only way that works out is either this new hardware comes with an OLED panel at launch and they can remove the OLED from the lineup, they kill the standard model and bump the OLED down, or the entire Switch lineup sees a price cut to make more room for this new hardware to come in at a price consumers will accept and that also creates enough price distance between it and the rest of the Switch lineup to not immediately cannibalize it.

If you’re saying to yourself “but Nintendo would never kill their profit margins on hardware”, let’s think that through:
If we assume Switch hardware earns Nintendo USD$100 profit per unit (which is probably a bit high, but even if it is, over-estimating that figure makes the point more clear), in H1 of FY03/2023 (where they sold 6.68 million Switches), that would mean Nintendo made USD$668 million on hardware in that time period.
In the same time period, their operating profit was ~USD$1.6 billion. So it’s pretty clear where Nintendo makes the bulk of their money, and it’s on the 95.41 million units of packaged software and download-only software in that same timeframe. Even at the possible over-estimation of USD$100 profit per hardware sold, that’d be about 41% of their profit. The 50-55% (factoring out merchandise, playing cards and mobile) from software is the number I'd be more interested in preservation of.

But even if they were interested in preserving that full unverified percentage of their profit, one has to ask if they’d rather take that money now in the short term or would prefer to have their next hardware earn the same or more profit in the later stages of its life cycle by setting it up for the best possible success at day one. This is a cyclical business and thinking strictly in the now is not always a good play, repeat success is not owed or guaranteed, it’s earned through good decisions. While I acknowledge this is the first time in a while that Nintendo has needed to consider undercutting a current success for the benefit of future prospects, it’s impossible to say that it’s not a necessary consideration for hardware makers.

If they didn’t have software ready in the back for a console launch they were planning for years then I have serious questions about their efficiency….

Software doesn't start getting made until after the design phase for new hardware is finished and there's a reasonable guess at the SoC's capability, at a minimum. So what software is ready depends entirely on when that process began.
Besides, it's not just Nintendo that needs to prep software, 3rd-parties have a shorter lead time than Nintendo does to do that, so Nintendo needs to give a realistic time window from when the first preliminary hardware spec information and/or kits are disseminated to 3rd-parties.

There's a massive time frame difference between a year or two of sales and the few weeks from Christmas to a January announcement. Also the 3DS is Nintendo's worst performing handheld. So they arguably would've been better off sticking with the DS for another year to get the 3DS production costs down. (It would've also let the DS likely pass 160m, for those who care about milestones.)

GBA was killed off too soon, but even accounting for inflation it was far far cheaper than a Switch which makes it an easier pill to swallow. (Like the cost of just 2 games cheap.)

OK, but if people are going to be upset about a new hardware release next year when they buy a Switch this holiday, does the specifics matter?

Excluding the GBC, GBA and Wii U (the shortest hardware cycles Nintendo has ever had, removed in the interest of fairness), the average time from hardware launch to the release of the next hardware is 6.395 years.
For just consoles except Wii U, the average is 5.87 years, less if Wii U is included.
For just handhelds except GBC/GBA, average is 7.26 years; OG Game Boy's obscene timeframe and removing GBC/GBA skews that figure immensely, so looking at just the two most recent handhelds, DS and 3DS, the average is 6.145 years.

As of today, Switch has been at retail for 5.765 years. So again, knowing the average cadence of Nintendo hardware releases specifically (because the typical time from launch date to the next hardware's launch date is easily obtained public record and most people have a general "feel" for a 6-7 year window without the hard numbers), who has a right to complain that they bought a Switch this holiday seasons and new hardware gets announced in January/February, when Switch could only have hoped to have 7-8 months left at best before, statistically speaking, new hardware would not just be announced but released at retail?

One has to consider that, if they're buying hardware this far into the cycle, they've a fairly good idea that they're doing the equivalent of buying an iPhone in August and aren't going to be fussed about it.